Election Central Saturday Roundup
Report: Private House Dem Polls Predict More Gains In 2008
Robert Novak: "Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party following its 2006 gain of 30 seats that won control of the House."
DNC Refuses To Sanction June Debate
The Hotline reports that the DNC is standing firm on their vow not to sanction any debates until July. Since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have pledged to abide by the DNC's schedule, then it's very likely that an upcoming June debate in New Hampshire will feature all the candidates except Clinton and Obama — which could potentially benefit John Edwards, Bill Richardson and other candidates. (This past week's South Carolina debate was agreed to before this rule was established.)
Fred Thompson: U.S. Should Aid Revolution In Iran
The Associated Press reports that Fred Thompson said the United States should give aid to anti-government efforts in Iran, accusing Iran of "playing a large part in killing our soldiers" in Iraq. Referring to Iranian dissidents, Thompson said, "There is a chance they may mobilize themselves, and we need to assist them if that happens."
Clinton Campaign Hits Obama On Terror Response
The Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton's campaign sees an opening in Barack Obama's response to a question at Thursday's debate about a hypothetical terrorist attack, when Obama focussed on helping the victims and gave only slight mention to retaliation. "Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked," the Clinton campaign is saying.
Dem Candidates Work Clyburn Event
The New York Times reports that the Democratic candidates spent yesterday at House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn's (D-SC) fish fry event, following Thursday night's debate with up close, retail politics. The Times noted another important element of the event: "The political purpose is clear: few candidates dare to miss it, considering they are working to win Mr. Clyburn’s endorsement."
McCain Chokes Up While Hearing Troop Story In Iowa
The Des Moines Register reports that John McCain succumbed to a strong showing of emotion when hearing from a woman about her son serving in Iraq. "I know you pray every night - and we will too," McCain said. While admitting, "I don't claim to be immune to sentimentality," McCain is nevertheless sticking with his support of Bush Administration policies.
Millender-McDonald Funeral To See Large Congressional Turnout
The Hill reports that the late Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald's (D-CA) funeral on Monday will see a large turnout of 95 members of Congress, who will be transported to the funeral on military aircrat. Millender-McDonald, who chaired the House Administration Committee, died last week of cancer.
HRC's campaign attacking Obama for being insufficiently militaristic in his answer at the debate is a perfect example of why I despise the way the Clinton's play the game of politics.
This is Republican-Lite, fear-monguering, Rovian BS at its very worst.
Every time I start to feel a little guilty for disliking Hillary so much, they pull another stunt like this. If she wins the nomination, I am really going to have to hold my nose when I fill out my ballot. Fortunately, I don't think she will win.
I would like to hear some of the HRC supporters defend this garbbage. You should feel embarassed.
April 28, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Here, after one of the worse military debacles in United States history, Senator Clinton is playing the "I'll bomb them faster than you will" game. Is there any wonder her negatives are mushrooming like that cloud we are all so terrified off, including in her supposedly secure New York state base?
April 28, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who could defend this:
How dare the Clinton camp claim, without mentioning Obama, that "Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked." Just outrageous, indefensible. I support all the candidates. So I support Hillary but there is no way I could defend her when her camp made such a vicious attack directly aimed at Obama.
Some might think this was just the “liberal media” ginning up a fake fight. But anytime a politician or their campaign staff blows their own horn it is obviously a direct attack on Obama.
April 28, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is typical of what DLC-oriented "Democrats" do. They say things that dovetail with GOP talking points.
As other commenters have noted, this just reinforces the perception that Sen. Clinton has learned precisely nothing from being so wrong on the Iraq War issue. And, again, it flows from the fundamental flaw in Clinton's candidacy--or is it her character?: her governing principle is staking out some perceived political advantage to herself.
Is there any doubt that a profound cynicism underlay Clinton's support for Bush's power to launch the war? (As well as Kerry's, and many other Dems who knew better.) We know her explanation--if I just knew then what I know now...--is phony. Most of us did know then (and acted accordingly to do what little we could do to try and head off the criminal disaster). If we knew, she knew. Simple as that.
So, in complete disregard of the failure of knee jerk military, and militaristic, solutions to our international challenges, Clinton basically says, if struck, I will kill someone else--and that would almost certainly, inevitably, include innocent civilians--immediately. This is the international version of Clintonism. The domestic version involved hustling back to Arkansas so Bill could kill Ricky Ray Rector. I know there is a lot of residual nostalgia on these boards for Bill Clinton and, yes, he was certainly better than Bush. But both he and Sen. Clinton practice a cynical, principle-free politics that was a dead end for progressives.
I'm hopeful that it will no longer pay returns for them. Perhaps Sen. Clinton thinks that being Lieberman-lite is a winner for her in Democratic primaries. If that's the advice she pays her consultants for, I suggest she save her money.
April 28, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'll bomb them faster than you will." That would be reckless and crazy. And of course Hillary didn't say that.
The question was "how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result." bush waited 30 days before he went after osama. Time osama used to get away.
Hillary:
"If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."
If we know who did it and where they are hiding she will go after them. Makes sense to me.
Can you please show me where in Hillary's response she said "I'll bomb them faster than you will" or even anything remotely close to that?
April 28, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
hadenough,
I don't have a problem with what HRC said.
I have a problem with them re-editing her comments and sending out a press release trumpeting how tough she would be as C-I-C. I have a problem with her spokesperson making vague, annonymous comments suggesting that Obama wasn't tough enough.
I have problems with any Democrat who reinforces Republican memes. I have a problem when Lieberman does it, and I have a problem when Clinton does it. Personally I would like to have a C-I-C who aims before pulling the trigger.
April 28, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to wapo a Hillary staffer said:
"Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked."
Where you get "vague, annonymous comments suggesting that Obama wasn't tough enough" I don't know. Could you point out where in the quote wapo uses you see any suggestion of Obama?
Why is it Hillary's fault wapo doesn't identify a staffer?
And are you saying any dem candidate that says they are the best at something is reinforcing repub memes? Do you mean any time a candidate blows their own horn they are helping repubs? Are there somethings a candidate can say they are best at and some they can't?
April 28, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president..." Hillary Clinton
I disagree completely with this statement by Senator Clinton. Clinton was a Senator and the vote on the Iraq War Resolution APPROVED war with Iraq after UN inspections. Period. This was the constitutional authority that Congress has to say yea or nay to presidential POLICY. Senator Clinton said yea and then excuses it by, "If I were President..." which simply has nothing to do with her vote as a Senator. She was not president and certainly had no reason to TRUST Bush.
Phil Graham got it right; Bob Byrd got it right; Ted Kennedy got it right; now Speaker Pelosi got it right; now Senator Obama got it right. All referred to Iraq not posing an imminent threat to America or to our interests.
Now we have a contingent of Washington belt Democratic power brokers over-represented in our candidates for President and they APPROVED THIS POLICY. Clinton, Biden, Edwards, and Dodd voted for this resolution. Richardson approved it at the time. I ask exactly the reason the folks who GOT IT WRONG ON POLICY have the judgment to be President. None of these "yea" candidates have proven they would have cool heads in a crisis as this certainly was.
None of this excuses or pardons Bush and his administration for being hell-bent to invade Iraq from the beginning of their administration; who used propaganda techniques in their public appearances with the tacit approval of MSM who, in the main, functioned as non-thinking stenographers; who ignored and ridiculed our long-standing allies in Europe; and who have revealed their tyrannical radicalism since the 2004 election.
Nothing excuses these 2002 votes "yea" votes or support for this radical policy. Nothing.
April 28, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations, you get the dance around and ignore the obvious award of the day.
Here is the quote:
"Clinton campaign officials declined to speak for the record about Obama's response, saying they wanted to focus publicly on her performance. But one aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity said of the Illinois senator, "I think he recognized that his answer was troubling because he came back and tried to fix it in the debate."
But in issuing their press release with the headline "Campaign Memo: Commander in Chief," the Clinton camp conflated her full answer on Thursday without indicating that it had been shortened, making her sound even tougher than when she delivered it."
Two days ago Giuliani said that the country would be safer with a Repub in the White House. Then HRC sends out a press release yeterday trumpeting how tough she would be. Her spokesperson anonymously criticizes Obama, of course the criticism is indirect, HRC knows, with her negatives already sky high, that she can't get away with full-frontal criticism.
She reinforced Giuliani's frame. I hate it when Lieberman does it, and I hate it when she does it.
April 28, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Upper Left,
I'm not a supporter of HRC (or any for that matter, yet)-- but I do think there are some realities that need to be addressed here.
There has been only one Democratic candidate in 30 years that has beaten a Republican in a Presidential election-- Clinton.
Think about that for a second. Thirty years.
Its not a coincidence that the way "Clinton's play the game" is related to that-- the other side is relentless is pulling any stunt against their opponents- McCain's black baby whisper campaign in SC, the Harold Ford commercials in 2006, Swiftboating Kerry, voter suppression, intentional voter confusion, etc. Its a brutal, brutal list of actions the other side is willing to engage-- and that's why they win, because it works.
The Clintons do play tough, not nearly to the disgusting level described above-- but that's what you need to do to win.
So regardless of who you support, if you're prepared to win the nomination-- then be prepared to "hold your nose" for whoever the Democratic nominee is-- because if their actions don't cause you to hold your nose, then it'll be just another Kerry/Gore/Dukakis/Mondale/Carter.
There are bigger things at stake than playing fairly.
April 28, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I doubt you'll find all that many Democrats who didn't hold their noses for some to all of the above.
The only time I *didn't* hold my nose voting for a Democrat was Bill Clinton in 1992, which was the first presidential vote I cast. At that time I was too young and dumb to fully grasp what was wrong about Bill.
What's so exciting about 2008 is that there's a not-negligible chance that we'll nominate a candidate who won't require many of us to hold our noses--Obama or Edwards.
There are bigger things at stake than playing fairly.
Perhaps including not letting our country become a de facto hereditary monarchy?
April 28, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dajafi,
You completely missed the point I was making in my post.
April 28, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Congratulations, you get the dance around and ignore the obvious award of the day."
I can see Hillary's camp saying Hillary is the best just bothers you to no end. You'll have to get used to it. The same thing happens every 4 years. It's called running for president.
And you think because wapo reported something an unnamed staffer says Hillary = lieberman. I'll have to get used to it. It's called a rube is born every 4 years.
April 28, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point. For the most part, I too consider myself a "pragmatic progressive". I care about winning; I care about it a lot. However, I reject the notion that it is in the best long term interests of our party and our country to adopt an "anything goes" style of politics.
Trying to beat the Repubs at their game is a loosing proposition. It breeds cynicism and alienation from the political process. Worse yet, it undermines the very notion of government and collective action in general.
Among my many complaints about BC, number one is his failure to push for significant campaign finance reform in 1993. The Clintons thought they could use the power of the majority and incumbency to beat the Republicans at the money game. That strategy hasn't worked too well for the past 14 years.
All that being said, the challenge you laid out in your post is real:
"Its a brutal, brutal list of actions the other side is willing to engage-- and that's why they win, because it works."
Yes and no. It has worked too often, but that doesn't mean that we are powerless. This post is not an appropriate place to lay out coherent plan for transforming our politics, but here are a few ideas:
I believe the net is part of the answer. We need to use the net to empower ourselves to keep the candidates and the media honest. Another part of the answer is for our candidates to learn that campaigns are about communicating a narrative to the voters. If we tell our own story it will be harder for the Repubs to smear our candidates with made up stories of their own. We need to learn how to frame issues. We need to get over our obsession with politically correct policy and begin to understand that campaigns are more about values, judgement, and character.
I am sure that I don't have all the answers, but I am sure that we need to start by putting our own candidates on notice that this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable. Are you listening Hillary?
April 28, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
supposedly it was an "Al Qaeda" attack and if we have any intelligence where there might be any "Al Qaeda," we're already bombing them. Its really kind of a stupid answer.
It reminded me of this satire that was linked on all of the blogs a couple years ago:http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/fafblog-interviews-democratic-party.html
Interviews with Democrats who supported the war where Hillary says everything from "Watch me eat a bug!" to "I can tear a boulder apart with my teeth!"
April 28, 2007 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"if we have any intelligence where there might be any "Al Qaeda," we're already bombing them. Its really kind of a stupid answer."
Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? To name just 2.
Its really a stupid question. But any chance to attack a dem candidate will not be missed.
Anyway this kinda reminds of the satire that got bush elected twice.
April 29, 2007 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Upper Left,
I hear and share your beliefs/aspirations, but I think the timing of them are further out in the future.
The internet, better communication, etc.-- while those are the waves of the future-- its not here yet.
Playing tough, within reason, will be necessary in 2008.
April 29, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have worded it better. If there was a place with intelligence there were al Qaeda that we COULD bomb. We can't bomb either Pakiston or Saudi Arabia, can we? Which makes you wonder where Hillary Clinton might be wanting to "retaliate" and "destroy" someone.
It IS a stupid question and a set up so that the pundits could do just what they did: praise the most warmongering Democrat.
April 30, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink